University of South FloridaScholar Commons

Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School

3-24-2017

Conceptualizing Social Wealth in the Digital Age:A Mixed Methods ApproachKristina OlivaUniversity of South Florida, kristinaoliva@gmail.com

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd

Part of the Economics Commons, Mass Communication Commons, and the SociologyCommons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GraduateTheses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact scholarcommons@usf.edu.

Scholar Commons CitationOliva, Kristina, "Conceptualizing Social Wealth in the Digital Age: A Mixed Methods Approach" (2017). Graduate Theses andDissertations.http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/6736

Conceptualizing Social Wealth in the Digital Age: A Mixed Methods Approach

by

Kristina Oliva

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Zimmerman School of Advertising and Mass Communication

College of Art & Sciences

University of South Florida

Major Professor: Artemio Ramirez, Ph.D. Janelle Applequist, Ph.D.

Travis R. Bell, M.S.

Date of Approval: March 10, 2017

Keywords: social networks, relational exchange, social capital, social economy

Copyright © 2017, Kristina Oliva

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv Abstract ............................................................................................................................................v Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1 Chapter Two: Review of Literature .................................................................................................4

Of Economic History ...........................................................................................................5 Economic Structure and Political Economy ........................................................................7 Social Exchange Theory ....................................................................................................13 Social Capital .....................................................................................................................19

Chapter Three: Method ..................................................................................................................23 Research Design.................................................................................................................23 Participants and Data Collection ........................................................................................25 Software .............................................................................................................................25 Procedure ...........................................................................................................................26 Ethical Considerations and Approval ................................................................................27

Chapter Four: Results and Analysis ...............................................................................................29

Qualitative Findings ..........................................................................................................29 Social Wealth .........................................................................................................30 Tier 1 Themes ........................................................................................................31

Relational Interest ......................................................................................32 Personal Expression ...................................................................................33 Solidarity ....................................................................................................34

Tier 2 Themes ........................................................................................................36 Relational Investment ................................................................................36 Value Exchange .........................................................................................37 Relational Outcomes ..................................................................................38

Quantitative Findings .............................................................................................43 Chapter Five: Discussion ...............................................................................................................47

Practical Application ..............................................................................................50

ii

References ......................................................................................................................................52 Appendices .....................................................................................................................................56

Focus Group Questions ......................................................................................................56 USF IRB Approval ............................................................................................................57

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Forms of Exchange Value ...............................................................................................38 Table 2: LIWC Analysis ................................................................................................................46

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Formation of Relational Investment ...............................................................................36 Figure 2: Production & Consumption of Value Resources ...........................................................40 Figure 3: Creation of Value Resources ..........................................................................................42

v

ABSTRACT

As society continues to shift into the digital age, the relationship between social exchange

and economic activity is becoming increasingly homogenous. The success of digital products are

largely sustained upon the leverage of social relationships and the quasi-sharing of material

items, services, and digital media. Emergence of the sharing and on-demand economies is

evidence of the necessity to understand social exchange as a form of economic transaction. As

such, this study attempts to conceptualize and define the concept of social wealth to understand

the basis of an economic synthesis. In attempt to theoretically integrate the concept, a mixed

methods design utilizing a grounded theory approach serves to set precedence for a future area of

study. Data is collected through a series of focus groups before analysis through a linguistic

processing program. The data reveals a proposed definition for social wealth in addition to a

proposed series of socioeconomic models of how social wealth is produced, accumulated, and

transferred.

1

CHAPTER ONE:

INTRODUCTION

An exponential advancement of technological innovation throughout the 20th century has

guided this new millennium into the dawn of a digital age. We have witnessed the persistent

demands of material production instilled by residual industrial age capitalists that have become

swiftly overshadowed by the necessity of products found on a digital medium. The emergence of

desktop computers and mobile technology now serve as hosts to the complex structure of

interactivity across a platform of websites and native applications. These services, whether to

provide information, connection, or entertainment, act as 21st century products whose successes

remains contingent upon a network of social actors. Our society is moving further into a

dependence upon these tools that not only accomplish daily tasks, but also present an

unprecedented range of solutions to resounding impediments of the previous century. We cannot

deny that these products are inherently shifting the very nature of both our social sphere and

capitalist system. The two are becoming increasingly entwined.

Airbnb now allows individuals to share their homes with strangers while Uber

incentivizes drivers to use their cars as a new form of public transportation. All the while, users

now have access to homes around the world and a ride across town is simply a tap away. Netflix

and Spotify both utilize subscription models that grant users access to a seemingly infinite range

of media content supplied to millions of individuals around the world. Twitter, Snapchat,

Facebook, and Instagram promote a sanctuary of user-generated content that can be exchanged

2

between friends and acquaintances alike. Each of these products is dependent upon a central

concept in the exchange of shared items, media, or experiences amongst a range of individuals

within a digital social network.

Despite functioning as a monetary transaction, these services are nonetheless decreasing

the personal ownership of material items for an increase in temporary ownership—a

phenomenon with the potential to drastically alter social organization. This reliance upon shared

services is promoting an ideological and ethical shift away from a society driven by consumption

into one driven by sharing (Weber, 2016; Cockayne, 2016). With these occurrences becoming

increasingly common, they are fundamentally altering not only economic, but relational function.

Opportunity for the formation of relational solidarity, efficacy, and collective action are simply

effects of these types of digital institutions. Insofar as public and social institutions are

concerned, relational productivity, or social capital, has long sustained salience to the daily

efforts of societal function and is not by any means a newfound concept. However, direction of

the present age indicates an epoch strongly infiltrating global economic and social spheres

characterized by the support of relational connectivity, in the form of social ties and reciprocity,

to a degree previously unforeseen in human history.

It is from these observational phenomena that we may begin to take further notice to

social function and understand how these relational occurrences take place in their present state.

Contemporary social capital literature addresses social exchange as a form of economic function,

and as such, acknowledgement in the presence of social capital has yielded in question potential

for the presence of social wealth (Glaeser et al., 2002; Ferrara, 2015, Fine & Lapavitsas, 2004).

This paradigm has yet to illuminate the extent to which social relations operate in this form and

3

thereby necessitates a foundational research approach. Therefore, grounded theory most

appropriately services this inquiry due to an absence of research surrounding the concept of

social wealth in the context of online social networks. This concept of social wealth differs from

a definition of the term developed prior to existence of the digital sphere, and an understanding

of social wealth in regard to its relational function across digital products has yet to display any

form of explicit research activity.

Furthermore, this study will attempt to conceptualize and define social wealth for further

theoretical integration and promise of practical application. Literature pertaining to political

economy, economic theory, economic sociology, and social exchange, which discuss the

concepts of economic and material wealth, social connections, and their interaction with society,

will theoretically guide this research. A mixed methods design will aid in developing

dimensional themes from focus group discussions alongside supplemental exploration of data in

the form of linguistic analysis. This study's intent is to approach the concept of social wealth

from an elementary position. The digital context through how this initial phenomenon was

observed is by no means expected to bear relation, if any at all, to the definitional outcome of

social wealth. An attempt to ground the concept will illuminate its primary function throughout

the social sphere and aid to determine whether this observation is simply a technological effect

or evidence of a deeper social phenomenon. However, for a concept that is semantically

formulated by both economic and social integration, this research will begin by discerning the

concept as such.

4

CHAPTER TWO:

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

To begin discussion surrounding the concept of wealth, it is imperative to conduct an

analysis of this subject through traditional means. Wealth is inherently part of a larger systematic

function of exchange, whereby it must derive from a particular source. An individual can have

vast amounts of wealth or a lack thereof. Wealth can be consumed, transferred, and invested to

accrue, deplete, or transform into different subsets. Presenting an isolated definition of wealth is

unjust without explication surrounding the vast complex mode of exchange. While this concept

is rather abstract, it is most commonly quantified within an economic form in relationship to the

capitalist market system. A proper analysis of the concept must consist of a holistic view of

economic structure in order to grasp how this framework is shifting within a contemporary

context. As such, a brief history of societal organization will be presented before identifying the

various concepts comprised within the capitalist economic system: (i) commodity, (ii) labor, (iii)

capital, (iv) money, and (v) wealth. An analysis of these forms will then be understood through

the sociological implications of relational exchange through both social exchange theory and

social capital.

5

Of Economic History

An explication of societal organization within political economics is evident throughout

Marx’s (1939/1973) Grundrisse. As a foundational analysis for capitalist thought, Marx

(1939/1973) presents numerous organizational forms that have evolved throughout history to

contribute to present day economic structure. An historical overview of this progression provides

insight into the relationship between material production and its effect on social systems.

Historical materialism defines the process by which this historical meditation is categorized

(Engles, 1940). Marx (1939/1973) classifies historical epochs into four distinct periods to

support the presence of an economic infrastructure and the political superstructures that derive

from them. An historical materialist lens is the means through which the progression of wealth is

best observed in order to further understand its relation to social structure.

The earliest form of socio-economic structure derived from the individual as part of

primitive clan membership. These societies are classified through the temporary possession,

rather than ownership, of property and are united under the basis of kinship (Marx, 1939/1973).

Clans are primarily nomadic in nature and sustain themselves by means of consumption directly

from their natural environment. Members are understood as a link equally contributing to the

sustainability of their respective community, however a larger unity amongst communities is

identified under the basis of clan membership. This ideological structure lends itself to the idea

of communal property ownership, which is self-sustaining and promotes the emergence of

material reproduction (Marx, 1939/1973).

However, historical materialism fails to address the presence of societies whose

economic structures were supported by gift transactions. Mauss (1925/1966) first discusses this

topic in The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Mauss analyzes social

6

phenomena from various civilizations as part of a total phenomenon influencing the development

of social institutions. These archaic communities were observed throughout New Zealand and

the Trobriand islands, and are a form of clan structure that function without the use of a

traditional monetary system. Rather, exchange is initiated through upholding social contracts by

means of moral obligation. The act of giving is purely voluntary, with motivation deriving from

individual self-interest through the anticipation of repayment. Items used for exchange included

possessions, food, land, services, labor, women, and children. Mauss (1925/1966) observes this

system as a division of labor within primitive societies that presents itself as an institutional

framework for the emergence of merchants and currency. Gift exchange served as a way to

formulate social bonds to mediate both inter-tribal and tribal relations between geographically

distant communities.

Similarly, Marx (1939/1973) observes an Asiatic form of ancient agrarian society whose

economic function remains dependent upon obligatory payments from communities through the

form of services or tribute. Although the idea of obligatory payments derives from the gift

economy, the two structures fundamentally differ. Within Asiatic communities, any excess labor

produced within the society is exchanged between tribes in order to sustain the larger collective

unit. This mode of exchange derives from the central construct of the clanship identifying as an

individual entity. These forms of communal investments serve to insure group sustainability

throughout events that are generally resource depleting such as war, famine, or religious activity.

Variations of this system have migrated clanship power from group ownership to that of the

clan’s patriarchs or an individual family. While clanship concepts were adopted by the Asiatic

state, the latter is distinguished by association with slavery due to the presence of a centralized,

autocratic state (Marx, 1939/1973; Kojin, 2014).

7

Progression of this form of society thereby transitions into the feudal Germanic and

further into Greco-Roman systems. Across feudal societies serfdom continued to enforce slavery,

while the lack of a centralized bureaucracy throughout various communities prevented the

regulation of trade systems. Feudal systems were characterized by reciprocal agreements

between lords and vassals. These agreements often pertained obligation to military service or a

vassal’s protection by the lord through use of his land (Kojin, 2014). Once the exchange had

been performed, the two actors were then bound in an obligatory contract to continue to provide

services and land to one another. The reciprocal mode of governance within the feudal system

retains its inherent ideology from clan society and rejects authoritarianism (applied to the case of

feudal systems without a centralized state) (Kojin, 2014). In order to uphold reciprocity, vassals

have the ability to sever allegiance with lords who fail to deliver on their agreements. However,

rise of an autonomous marketplace is evident as a direct result of the newfound increase in

private ownership. Development of new forms of mercantilism quickly began to dominate the

world economy in the 16th century, as thereafter, increased industrialization and emergence of

globalized trade served as the foundation for capitalist society dominated by the mass production

and exchange of commodities (Kojin, 2014). Emergence of this newfound capitalist system

produced a structure through which private ownership managed the gathering and transformation

of resources into commodities by means of labor. These items are then sold, or exchanged, for a

monetary value that can be further invested into maintaining the system of production or utilized

for the purchase of additional commodities.

Economic Structure and Political Economy

Evidently, resources serve as the primary foundation of exchange throughout all forms of

economic systems. Within a capitalist economy, how resources are employed throughout their

8

life cycles, from production through to consumption, and the means by which they are

exchanged determine an item’s value (Marx, 1867/1887; Ricardo, 1817/2001; Smith, 1776). The

presence of both use and exchange values for an item identify whether that item is useful to an

individual. Therefore, external, material objects that exist to satisfy a want or need are defined as

commodities (Marx, 1867/1887; Mill, 1848/2009; Smith, 1776). However, it is crucial to note

that not every item of value can be defined as a commodity. A market system operates on the

basis of supply and demand, through which the regulation of values is determined based upon

both the availability and necessity of those items. The paradox of a commodity within the market

is that it must maintain a particular level of scarcity in order to be considered of value. An

unlimited amount of a commodity would no longer serve as a market commodity because it

cannot be exchanged (Mill, 1848/2009). In this case, the item has high use value and low

exchange value. In order for a commodity to be exchanged, it must maintain both use and

exchange value to be integrated into the market (Marx, 1867/1887; Mill, 1848/2009; Ricardo,

1817/2001; Smith, 1776).

To sustain these commodities, the process by which natural resources are transformed

into items fit for use is performed by the effort of individuals. Therefore, labor is pivotal within

the process of production and serves as a direct source of value to commodities (Marx,

1867/1887; Mill, 1848/2009; Ricardo, 1817/2001; Smith, 1776). Marx (1867/1887) identifies

labor as consisting of three primary dimensions: (i) work performed on an item, (ii) the resource,

and (iii) tools used to perform the task of labor. What appear to be missing from this consensus

are not only the use of time, but also the necessary skills by which the labor activity can be

performed. Labor is not by any means an innate human attribute, however it maintains the ability

to be taught, learned, and adapted amongst individuals. Depending upon the product of interest

9

an individual desires to create or obtain, varying levels of time and effort are required for the

ability to do so.

While scarcity functions as the source of use value for commodities, labor power is the

primary source of commodity exchange value due to the transformative process of making items

more desirable to consumers. Smith (1776) discusses labor as being the original currency used to

purchase all things. However, this system was determined incapable of functioning as a viable

solution due to the unequal proportions between the values of different forms of labor. The

varying degrees of difficulty to perform and time spent acquiring the appropriate skills needed

are arduous to measure under the conception of sustaining an equal exchange process. It is

therefore unfavorable for a carpenter to perform an immediate exchange of his items to a brewer

for beer, as the brewer might not desire carpentry and cannot perform the exchange. The

question then arises in determining how much of a carpenter’s craft is worth x pints of beer? The

abstraction of the concept of labor complicates a functional measure of exchange value. It is thus

the use of currency that quantifies the labor process into a nominal form.

The transformation of commodities through the labor process ultimately lends itself to

the production of capital. Capital is defined as being the stock an individual needs to produce

revenue (Smith, 1776; Mill, 1848/2009). When a man is limited insofar as to gather enough stock

for himself to consume, he cannot obtain revenue, as he has only gathered enough stock to

support his needs. In this instance revenue is of personal gain and derived directly from labor. In

the event a man gathers an excess of stock to support himself for an extended period of time, he

can now distinguish his possessions into two parts. A man now possesses enough stock to meet

his needs and can delegate a portion of his stock for this purpose. The surplus of stock, or capital,

10

can be exchanged for other items to produce a profit. Therefore, revenue is derived directly from

capital (Smith, 1776; Mill, 1848/2009).

In this case, the definition of stock is rather fundamental in nature and varies slightly to

the previous Marxian conception of a commodity. Rather than pertaining to a particular desire,

Smith (1776) utilizes the term “stock” to refer to any material good one may possess and

consume. However, each conceptualization is valid within the definition of material items to

present a more robust understanding of their position within a market system. While the

Smithian conception defines material items according to their objective properties of use for the

purpose of production, the Marxian perspective assigns subjective properties associated with the

emotional value needed for their circulation and ultimate consumption. Distinguishing the two

leverages the emergence of items categorized as capital.

An individual’s incentive for the production of capital directly corresponds to the

exchange of surplus commodities for currency. Currency, in effect, serves to assign nominal

value to commodities as it encompasses the value of both labor efforts and capital. Historically,

rudimentary forms of currency varied between different societies across India, Newfoundland,

Abyssinia, and Trobriand Islands in the south Pacific (Smith, 1776; Mauss, 1925/1966). These

methods of exchange accepted salt, tobacco, sugar, and jewelry made from shells. However,

these materials were not long-lasting methods of payment due to the fact that they were easily

consumable and perishable. It soon became apparent that currency needed to be standardized by

commodities that yield little to no maintenance cost for the system to remain sustainable. Metals

were then seen as the highest valued commodity due to their very low rate of loss and

perishability. Metals can also be uniquely divided, transferred, and united once again —

11

demonstrating qualities absent from other commodities, which are optimal for integration into

the market economy (Smith, 1776).

The long-term sustainability of gold, silver, and copper was viable theoretically, albeit its

lack of practical function within the process of circulation. As such, raw metals posed problems

throughout the storage and personal transport of the naturally heavy currency within one’s daily

activity. In addition, weighing metals became impractical alongside the inability to enforce

regular quality checks on them (Smith, 1776). The emergence of coined money and paper

currency thereafter solved for these grievances, which limited fraud and instituted a fluid

exchange process. However, money remains a commodity that functions identically to

exchangeable market commodities. From the mining of these precious metals throughout their

transformation into coins, labor efforts continue to account for the currency’s inherent value. As

for any commodity, scarcity and high demand for the metals also serve to fluctuate their market

value. The notion of currency as a commodity generates a regulated system intended to avoid the

overproduction and over inflation of currency (Smith, 1776). In this case, scarcity of monetary

commodities is absolutely vital for the sustainability of a market equilibrium due to the market

value of items constantly shifting. Price and value are not static concepts, but rather dynamic

throughout the market in order to create equality of demand at different times.

The measure of surplus value or profit in the forms of currency and capital produces the

concept of wealth. Mill (1848/2009) defines wealth as being “all useful or agreeable things

which possess exchangeable value” (p. 60). Expounding upon this conception, Mill (1848/2009)

declares that while money can be defined as a form of wealth, it may also be derived through

commodity ownership. The process by which an individual may own and sell a surplus quantity

of commodities is a regulatory process within the market system. The activity of buying and

12

selling promotes an individual’s purchasing power in order to initiate exchanges. Commodities

that are exchanged in return for monetary payment define the nature of material wealth. In these

terms, Marx (1867/1887) defines wealth as “an immense accumulation of commodities” (p. 6).

While Mill’s approach identifies wealth as an individual item that possesses value, the Marxian

perspective measures wealth as a variable of the output of production. The two

conceptualizations can also be distinguished as defining both commodity use and exchange

values. The monetary value associated with these commodities constitutes a form of monetary

wealth. That is to say, wealth is altogether present within resources, forms of exchange, and as a

direct result of said exchanges. Both conceptions establish a concrete and quantifiable approach

to understanding wealth in various forms as it evolves throughout the exchange process.

Thomas Hobbes (1651/1985) discusses wealth as being conceptually analogous to power

throughout his political critique, Leviathan. Within his essay, Hobbes (1651/1985) describes

what he deems as natural power, which is the exudence of personal strengths, whether related to

eloquence, nobility, liberality, and the like. Additionally, instrumental power is derived from

fortune utilized to acquire more fortune. An individual’s value is therefore his price, or monetary

accumulation, that is “given for use of his power” (p.54). Smith (1776) supports the Hobbesian

analysis of wealth as power insofar as employing this conception into the definition of

purchasing power. The power of purchasing ultimately serves as an extended dimension of

wealth within the market system. In contrast, the possession of material wealth enables the power

of consumption, or what can be concluded as consuming power. In this sense, material wealth

can be utilized both for consumption or transferred into being sold for additional monetary

wealth. The same process applies for monetary wealth and purchasing power transferred to

13

material wealth and consuming power. As such, the proportion of an individual’s wealth directly

corresponds to the amount of power they posses (Smith, 1776).

Social Exchange Theory

Discussion of social behavior throughout the 20th century derives from psychological and

sociological theory. Georg Simmel (1902) first addressed the relationship between individuals

and their effects on group behavior within his essay The Number of Members As Determining

The Sociological Form of a Group. Simmel (1902) observed how group size inherently affects

how each individual functions within it. In studying group solidarity, politics, and individual

freedom, Simmel (1902) ultimately questions their relationship to the personality of the

individual. The fluctuation between 2 and 3 person groups are noted to display significant

differences. The formation of dyads, such as in a marriage or friendship, is only sustainable with

the presence of both members. In contrast, triads can continue to exist despite the loss of a

member and decisions are made under agreement of the majority. While small groups may

attempt to tackle short-term tasks, they contend to accomplishing larger goals (Simmel, 1902).

In addition to a meditation concerning network size, Simmel (1900/2004; 1908/1971)

preceded to argue for the understanding of economic transaction as a means of social exchange.

Within The Philosophy of Money, Simmel (1900/2004) discerns that the process of exchange is

determined by society, where the presence of undocumented and unregulated exchanges between

individuals ultimately progress to controlled transactions. Archaic societies sustained under a

system of social exchange are not regarded to transfer gifts, but to rather initiate a change of

ownership between individuals (Simmel, 1900/2004). Under this notion, scarcity and economic

value are irrelevant to objects of exchange due to the need for individuals to perform exchange

by sacrificing one thing for another. As such, an object’s importance is determined by an

14

individual’s desire and use for it (Simmel, 1900/2004). While the concept of sacrifice is purely a

Simmelian view, it can be acknowledged that the utilitarian position surrounding social exchange

echoes throughout contemporary literature surrounding this topic. The relationship between

social exchange and economic theory is a rather tumultuous one, as researchers struggle to

understand whether the process can be defined by economic means or consists more of a

sociological approach. However, a general understanding persists that exchange is thereby lead

as a sociological phenomenon supporting function of the social sphere (Simmel, 1900/2004;

Homans, 1958; Blau, 1964/2009; Cook & Rice, 2003).

As a result of Simmel’s research pertaining to group dynamic and social exchange,

Homans (1958) first expounds upon the nature of social transaction from a phenomenological

point of view. In addition to acknowledgement of Mauss’ (1925/1966) seminal significance,

Homans (1958) sought to establish foundational momentum for the emergence of an exchange

theory with the intention of bridging commonality between both economics and sociology.

Although his approach remains heavily influenced by behavioral psychology, it nevertheless

begins to discuss how group cohesion can produce an equilibrium of exchange relations. As

such, Cook & Rice (2003) identify social exchange to be first defined as “the exchange of

activity, tangible or intangible, and more or less rewarding or costly, between at least two

persons” (p. 54), which further pertains to the derivative economic concepts of cost, value, and

reward (Homans, 1958; Blau, 1964/2009; Emerson, 1976; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959/2009). In

order to generate this form of activity, social exchange must be sustained by behavior that is

incentivized by socially mediated goals (Blau, 1964/2009).

Ultimately, social exchange is discerned as a transactional system regulated by economic

function. As Homans (1958) suggests a simple model consisting of profit = reward — cost,

15

Thibaut & Kelley (1959/2009) indicate the presence of this phenomena through a series of

situational dimensions such as rejection, ability, and propinquity. Blau (1964/2009) understood

social exchange through a more utilitarian approach, suggesting it function in the form of

reciprocal obligatory payments individuals perform to each other much like a gift economy. Blau

(1964/2009) also supports Homans’ approach in discussing how social rewards emerge as a

result of social associations, where gratitude and personal satisfaction function as relational

outcomes. However, a review of seminal works indicates the emergence of a dimensional

structure of exchange. Research has since identified (i) power, (ii) fairness, (iii) emotion, (iv)

commitment, and (v) collective action as salient concepts.

The rise of power and social status are suggested as central concepts to social exchange,

as individuals remain dependent upon each other for goods and services (Blau, 1964/2009;

Baldwin, 1978; Cook & Rice, 2003). An emphasis on exchange as a form of power relation

suggests evidence for the exploitation of individuals to result in an imbalanced and conflicting

social structure. Actors may do so through the control of resources in addition to the display of

coercive personality traits (Blau, 1964/2009; Molm, 1997). This position brought rise to the

development of social network theory, as the structural organization of social networks began to

integrate as a variable of analysis into the study of power distribution throughout networks.

Under this notion, Cook & Yamagishi (1992) argue that networks may actually increase social

equilibria through the use of relational dependence between actors. Molm (1990) supports this

view by emphasizing that reciprocal gift giving of resources between actors aid to develop

exchange relationships over time. As such, reciprocal arrangements are not dominated by

authoritative power and are rather diffused, where any actor can display coercive, punishment, or

dependent characteristics in order to gain rewards (Molm, 1997). Reciprocity, in effect, is

16

understood as a key concept throughout social exchange theory, which contributes to the

sustainability of power relations between actors.

The emergence of fairness relates to the nature of commitments and obligation. Unfair

exchange is understood through the nature of relational equity and power distribution, as fairness

judgments are determined by both the type and amount of power being exerted by an actor. In

other words, exchanges are defined in fairness through an equal production in profits between

both actors (Cook & Rice, 2003). This understanding supports the relationship of emotion to

social exchange insofar as discerning its relational effects. The presence of emotions is found to

influence relational ties, solidarity, and the amount of relational production between actors

(Lawler et al., 1999, 2000, 2001). Moreover, relational cohesion theory aids in discerning how

power directly affects the frequency of exchange by producing both positive emotions and

relational cohesion (Cook & Rice, 2003).

Exchange frequency is also defined in terms of relational commitment, which is sustained

by social uncertainty, or the success of a relational transaction (Cook & Emerson, 1984). High

levels of uncertainty are found to yield high levels of commitment, which increase an actor’s

exchange frequency and resulting amount of profit. Therefore, uncertainty increases the

formation of commitments (Cook & Rice, 2003). In conjunction with power, fairness, emotions,

and certainty, the level of social status associated with an actor may influence network

connections and the transfer of resources. However, status relations generate an unequal

distribution of resources due to the high popularity of exchange with high status actors. In effect,

this generates a perceived value of resources structured by the hierarchy of social status within a

particular community (Cook & Rice, 2003). As such, collective action remains a challenge for

17

actors to accumulate social goods and fulfill social obligations while also satisfying personal

interests.

Additionally, the concept of generalized exchange emerges as an additional phenomenon

to note throughout social exchange literature. Where social exchange is primarily understood to

consist of direct, reciprocal exchanges involving two actors, generalized exchange pertains to a

system in which one actor performs an exchange with another, but is reciprocated by a third

party (Cook & Rice, 2003; Takahashi, 2000). This occurrence is quite prevalent in social life,

which can be witnessed through events such as blood donations, reviews of journal articles, and

hitchhiking (Takahashi, 2000). As such, generalized exchange is characterized by a social chain

where resources are exchanged and distributed by the benevolence of third party actors. While

this system retains the opportunity to be effective, it also presents numerous complications

pertaining to fairness. The expectation for a third party to perform a return is only sustained upon

the basis of trust and nothing exists to hold the third party accountable. Thus, the free rider

problem becomes prevalent, where individuals may receive resources without ever exchanging

resources with others (Cook & Rice, 2003; Takahashi, 2000; Widegren, 1997). This inherently

breaks the structure of reciprocity and solidarity within the community, where conflict arises

between both the individual and collective interests of the group. Takahashi (2000) argues that a

functional generalized exchange system may arise as a result of a social system in which actors

have knowledge about one another in order to first build empathy between each individual in the

community. Thereafter, a network structure needs to be promoted in which empathy and

accountability are sustained.

While social exchange theory has been guided by research in economic sociology, the

framework arguably neglects the holistic function of social exchange and only discerns relational

18

outcomes. This in effect has presented literature that has yet to discuss social exchange as an

economic transaction in terms of buying and selling. It may be argued that economic transactions

are mediated by forms of social exchange, and as such, can be further developed, if not

transitioned into a single form of social transaction that incentivizes exchange based upon

relational outcomes. Cook & Rice (2003) believe that a lack of empirical research persists

throughout social exchange literature, as most exchange studies are conducted within the context

of a laboratory experiment. Economic sociologists, however, pursue field research to validate

empirical findings and thereby support the need for social exchange theory to possess stronger

empirical study in the field.

As interpersonal relationships continue to remain a microcosm of the macro function of

the social network, exchange theory research needs to continue exploring social exchange under

a holistic observation in order to truly understand the function of exchange systems. This view

complements the need for social exchange to develop as a transactional process sustained by

economic function. While social exchange literature introduces the possibility of this view

through the discussion of exchange by means of reward, costs, and reciprocity in the form of

transactional inputs and outputs, a distinct functional delineation is absent from discussion. More

importantly, social exchange literature neglects to define presence of any form of profitable

exchange, or social wealth. A conceptualization of social wealth is needed to further distinguish

the economic nature of relational exchange and support theoretical extension of social exchange

beyond the relational effects of power, fairness, emotion, commitment, and collective action.

Fundamentally, how are these effects occurring? How can they be measured? Social capital

begins to inquire deeper into the exchange process by understanding exchange as a form of

relational investment.

19

Social Capital

Social capital is a concept first originating from sociology, political science, and

economics, which primarily concern the relationship between social networks and their ability to

produce capital through an accumulation of social resources (Beaudoin, 2011). While the

Marxian understanding of capital consists of a surplus of resources, the utilization of those

resources in various forms generates numerous derivatives of capital. Throughout contemporary

literature, social capital has emerged as a derivative of neo-capitalist theory. Defined from

contribution by numerous scholars such as Bourdieu (1986/1983), Burt (1997), Coleman (1988),

Putnam (1995), and Lin (1999), social capital is most commonly discussed as the investment in

social relations with expected returns. A supplemental definition positions social capital as being

understood as a formation of social networks in order to facilitate action.

Lin (1999) explicates social capital as the ability to acquire resources through the

following elements: (i) information, (ii) influence, (iii) social credentials, and (iv) reinforcement.

Therefore, information transferred between individuals is dependent upon social ties that

influence the actions of social actors. This may determine an individual’s social credentials,

which require reinforcement for continued access to resources. As such, the dimensions of social

capital are proposed to be operationalized through (i) trust, (ii) level of engagement, and (iii)

reciprocity (Lin, 1999). However, in regard to more than one individual, Norris (2002)

operationalizes group phenomena into both bridging and bonding groups. As such, bridging is

defined as “groups that function to bring together disparate members of the community” (p. 3),

while bonding concerns close-knit networks among people sharing similar backgrounds and

beliefs. Although these groups function to influence the level of social capital production, they

do so insofar as generating trust and reinforcing community ties (Norris, 2002). The

20

manifestation of such groups online are dependent upon both (i) type and depth of social

cleavage (in terms of race, gender, class) and (ii) type of group (Norris, 2002).

James Coleman (1988) views social capital as a principle of purposive action that

influences both the development of individuals as well as social organization. Intellectual

streams producing social action therefore determine social organization. The first intellectual

stream consists of understanding how social actors derive their choice of actions from the

surrounding social environment, while the second observes the independent goals an actor has

exercised out of self-interest. Understanding modes of action strongly drive research in both

neoclassical economic theory and political philosophy. Coleman (1988) argues that intellectual

streams within the social context not only supports a functioning society, but also directly

sustains an economic system. While the transformation of materials through the process of

production is defined as physical capital, human capital is derived from changes producing new

skills influencing the ability to perform new actions. This can be understood as intellectual

changes providing the necessary knowledge to alter one’s capabilities in order to obtain new

goals (Coleman, 1988). Human capital can be singularly acquired or produced, however its

accumulation is dramatically facilitated by social capital. These relations remain governed by the

strength of social ties facilitated by high levels of trust and engagement to produce a reciprocal

effect (Coleman, 1988).

Putnam (1995) discusses the influence of civic engagement and social connectivity on

societal structure, which in turn supports a strong democratic system. Civically engaged

communities have proven to positively affect the structural quality of education, poverty,

unemployment, and crime. As such, monetary achievement is attributed towards the relational

ties each social group maintains. Putnam (1995) discovered that social networks have the ability

21

to increase job placement alongside entrepreneurial collaborations that improve organizational

structure overall. This indicates an economic approach to social capital as being a valid

possibility of measure in the production of tangible outcomes. While this study particularly

reviews social capital across communities offline, social capitalist research has since focused

upon the emerging possibilities of online activity.

Social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook serve as primary sources for

researchers to study social capital production. While these networks are driven entirely through

social interaction, these actions produce exchanges that can be monitored and recorded. Results

from an experiment or survey are optimal to gather through these platforms by the ability to

measure the ongoing flux of relational ties within a quantitative environment. Specifically within

the context of Facebook, Lambert (2015) seeks to understand the relationship between intimacy

and social capital production on the platform. Lambert (2015) discovers that an individual’s

‘self-system’ influences one’s ability to generate social capital on Facebook. Self-system is

defined by the following characteristics: (i) self-efficacy, (ii) self-esteem, (iii) self-assertion, and

(iv) social presence. As such, stronger self-systems can be attributed towards an increase in

intimacy amongst social ties. Lambert (2015) argues for continued research investigating the

psychological and sociological causes of social capital, rather than simply investigating their

effects.

Moreover, research has clearly identified the relevance of social capital in regard to

relational ties, solidarity, support of labor function, and self-systems across numerous situational

environments. While existing literature understands social exchange in the form of relational

effects, social capital more specifically expounds upon the nature by which social groups are

maintained and utilized to produce desired outcomes. Although social capital discusses social

22

relations in the form of expected returns, no such return has been quantified or defined. In

addition, social capital indicates the presence of wealth without a pure definition of such

resources. As previously identified throughout traditional economic theory, a surplus of

resources indicates the presence of capital that can either be consumed or exchanged for profit

(Marx, 1867/1887; Mill, 1848/2009; Ricardo, 1817/2001; Smith, 1776). It remains clear that

social capital’s foundational denotation is incomplete. Alongside social exchange theory, social

capital refrains from identifying the type of resources produced and exchanged between social

actors. In order to integrate social exchange systems under an economic paradigm, these

fundamental inquiries need to be defined and operationalized through the concept of social

wealth. As such, the following research questions are derived to begin integration of both

relational and economic paradigms. By first defining wealth throughout the social sphere, a

concept of social wealth may emerge. Thereafter, understanding the effects of social wealth on

social actors and exchange will aid in the attempt of operationalization.

RQ1: How is wealth defined amongst online social relations?

RQ2: What is the effect of wealth on online social relations?

23

CHAPTER THREE:

METHOD

Research Design

A study of social wealth must begin with an understanding and conceptualization of

dimensional themes in order to be integrated into theory. As witnessed throughout contemporary

literature, social wealth has yet to be explicitly studied or defined. While it remains most closely

associated with the phenomena of social exchange and social capital, a precise categorization

remains unclear. Due to the exploratory nature of this concept, the study utilizes grounded theory

to best approach this research from a primary standpoint. To increase the validity of research

findings, a mixed methods approach is applied to this framework. Qualitative data collection first

takes place in the form of focus groups before evaluation through thematic analysis. Linguistic

Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) thereafter performs a quantitative measure of semantic

meaning to assess the validity of dimensional themes.

The lack of a conceptual definition has yet to explicate whether the concept of social

wealth remains an extension of an existing theory or identifies as a unique framework of study.

As such, the use of grounded theory is necessary to provide a guided direction that positions the

concept of social wealth within an appropriate theoretical categorization. Grounded theory is a

qualitative methodology with application to the development of building theory. Most notably

introduced by Glaser and Strauss in 1967, the attempt to ground a theoretical approach served to

strengthen the integration between theory and empirical research (Strauss & Corbin, 1994).

24

Functioning as an inductive approach, the methodology is theoretically tied to both pragmatism

and symbolic interactionism, where social actors are observed in response to changing

phenomena (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). In other words, grounded theory is inherently sustained by

qualitative methods such as interviews and ethnographic observation in addition to video, audio

recordings, books, and other written material. What most notably characterizes the methodology

is the interchange of data collection and analysis. A researcher must first approach the field

without any perceived expectations of a particular outcome, thereby conducting data analysis

throughout the collection process (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). This enables the research process to

follow an iterative strategy, where the researcher can formulate questions in response to data

provided by participants. As such, Glaser & Strauss (1967) have most succinctly summarized

this intent, where a grounded theory approach is one of discovery that grounds a theory in reality.

Social settings are observed to be an effective environment for the emergence of data that

might otherwise be difficult to identify if beginning with quantitative analysis. Focus groups are

therefore intended to provide a foundational direction for the pursuit of focused quantitative

measure. Grounded theory has successfully leveraged focus groups to extract data from

participants of a wide demographic and personal history. Repetitive data from individuals may

sustain stronger salience due to the range of insight from these personas, while also offering

flexibility for the researcher to evaluate data through an axial approach and modify questions

throughout interviews as needed. Studies by Kimball et al. (2016), Renolen & Hjälmhult (2015),

Bland & Tobbell (2016), and Stray et al. (2014) have recently utilized focus groups or interviews

under grounded theory as a valid form of research design across a variety of disciplines.

25

Participants and Data Collection

Data was collected from moderated focus group sessions over a two week period.

Participants were collected through snowball sampling from a population of working

professionals between the ages of 25-48 from a technology company in Florida. Recruitment was

performed on social media with requirements encompassing individuals who have familiarity

with mobile and social media use. Exclusion criteria consisted of participants who were non-

English speakers in addition to those outside of the 18-48 age range, which included children and

those over the age of 48. Individuals who had limited internet access and did not own a computer

or mobile device were excluded from the study. The selected sample consisted of twelve

participants (n=12) including seven males and five females.

Software

Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software version 2015 was utilized to

measure results of the preceding thematic analysis (Pennebaker & King, 1999; Khan et al.,

2007). This software served to indicate additional emotional and cognitive qualities of social

wealth through the analysis of words expressed by participants. Text within a document or

spreadsheet is first run through the program before a combination of targeted and dictionary

words are scanned. Words from each response are analyzed across 90 predefined psychological

variables once matched by the software’s internal dictionary of 6,400 words. Each of the 90

variables is displayed across 5 primary categories: Word Count, Summary Language Variables,

Linguistic Dimensions, Other Grammar, and Psychological Processes. Of these categories,

Psychological Processes was selectively used for analysis, which is comprised of 10

subcategories. Numerical output from the program measures the percentage of recognized words

26

that relate to each dimensional category. Words are not limited in association to one category and

may be matched to as many categories that apply.

Procedure

The researcher moderated each focus group with the assistance of a professional

researcher who recorded notes for the duration of each session. Intent of the focus groups served

to stimulate a discussion concerning participant’s views on social connections and the nature of

social activity. Participants were encouraged to discuss their responses openly in the form of a

casual conversation in attempt to eliminate anxiety amongst the group for proper data collection

to be performed. Audio recording captured the entirety of each focus group and functioned as the

primary mode of data collection for further analysis and transcription. Semi-structured questions

funneled from a broad understanding of the group’s perception of what constituted a successful

social connection into a narrow comprehension of their views concerning social wealth.

Successful social connections were first discussed in order to have participants identify

the composition of a beneficial social relationship and understand what that means to them.

Under cognizance from the literature that economic wealth is generated by a surplus of capital

sustained by successful transactions, this question intended to inquire into an equivalent social

process. Once a definition of success was defined, additional questions addressed the relationship

between short, long, online and offline relationships alongside the association of those concepts

to digital brands, applications, and social media platforms. Once participants were primed in

thinking about their views concerning social relations, they were asked how they would define

social wealth.

27

Upon completion of data collection, the researcher transcribed each focus group in a

word processor. The transcriptions were utilized in completing open and axial coding procedures

for thematic analysis. All transcription information was then transferred into a spreadsheet to

prepare for analysis through LIWC. Of the categories presented by the software, only 7 of the 10

subcategories within Psychological Processes were used that pertained to most strongly present

both emotional and cognitive measures of the responses. The dimensions chosen for analysis are

as follows: Affect (positive emotions, negative emotions, anxiety, anger, sadness), Social

(family, friends), Cognitive Processes (insight, causal, discrepancies, tentative, certainty,

differentiation), Drives (affiliation, achievement, power, reward, risk), Time Orientation (past

focus, present focus, future focus), Relativity (motion, space, time), and Personal Concerns

(work, leisure, home, money).

Ethical Considerations and Approval

The study was approved by IRB during the month of November in 2016 and performed

according to university research guidelines. All electronic data were stored securely within a

password-protected file on the researcher’s personal computer. Confidentiality of participants

was maintained through the use of a private room for the duration of each interview in addition

to the designation of randomly assigned pseudonyms for use within the study report. Upon

recruitment, participants were briefed on the nature of the study, which included the topics of

privacy and confidentiality. Thereafter, written consent for group interviews and audio recording

were obtained by participants. All participants prior to the start of each focus group additionally

verified verbal consent for the permission of audio recording. In the event participants wanted to

contribute to the study but did not consent to audio recording, a secondary exercise was

available. The exercise required a written response to the identical pre-defined questions

28

presented to each session and took place in a separate room from where the focus groups were

being held. This enabled the ability for participants to work at their own discretion for the same

allotted time. However, none of the participants rejected audio consent and no additional written

documents were collected during the procedure. Compensation to participants was provided in

the form of food and beverage as acknowledgement for their time.

29

CHAPTER FOUR:

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Qualitative Findings

Following data collection, a thematic analysis was performed through open and axial

coding to discern the results. Codes were distinguished by commonalities identified throughout

participant responses. Fifty-three codes were condensed into six themes in relation to social

wealth. Themes are organized into two tiers of thematic categories in response to the research

questions. The first tier (RQ1) identifies three dimensions characterizing relational attributes

required to generate social wealth, which consists of (i) relational interest, (ii) personal

expression, and (iii) solidarity. The second tier (RQ2) pertains to a high-level transactional

process that is categorized by (iv) relational investment, (v) value exchange, and (vi) relational

outcome. As a result of this categorization, two conclusions were distinguished: (1) a proposed

definition of social wealth, and (2) the indication of a transactional process that illuminates the

production and consumption of social wealth within the social system. A definition of social

wealth will first be discussed following a deeper explication of each thematic category that

remains conducive to its function.

30

Social Wealth. Social wealth functions under a foundation of value, where actors are

incentivized to construct social relations in order to fulfill personal needs and desires. This can

be defined as personal value, where social actors seek to acquire a form of value that satisfies

their needs within a particular moment in time. Personal value is the primary motive in formation

of exchange relations and is not a static concept, but varies according to relative circumstances of

the individual. The exchange of value between actors that satisfies each beneficiary’s personal

needs functions to create social ties and ultimately leads to network formation. In regard to the

social network, personal value is defined by the individual, or ego, in conjunction to the

network’s perception of the ego. This dichotomy in the definition of personal value for both

individual and collective types functions to generate a social marketplace through which value

can be sought, offered, and exchanged under various needs.

Therefore, as a result of this analysis social wealth can be defined as the accumulation of

personal value within a social network. This concept is not exclusive to relational quantity, but is

also relative to the relational quality between actors. The symbiotic relationship of satisfying

personal value between actors functions under the amount of value accumulated from these

network formations rather than from the relational quantity in having them. Consequently, social

wealth does not solely pertain to networks of strong ties and may manifest in distinct forms

across a variety of social contexts. For example, while a celebrity can retain thousands of

followers on a social media platform, they can offer their followers content that they find of

value, and as such, sustain the ability to leverage additional value from them when needed.

Return value from their followers can manifest in the form of personal validation or even

monetary profit from endorsements and advertising. As a result of an exchange of value from

both the celebrity and network of followers, each party may possess a form of social wealth.

31

While strength in both weak and strong ties may vary across different networks, the presence of

social wealth remains in whether social actors sustaining relational ties of any form can perform

value exchanges. Leslie, Steven, and Nate further explicate this notion:

Leslie: I think that it’s on an individual basis. I feel like every person has their own individual

social wealth. Like, whatever fulfills them personally. If some people need a million friends or if

some people need one friend, but at the end of the day you feel satisfied. Each person will feel

satisfied with whatever they individually prefer, I guess.

Steven: Yeah, on a social network… yeah. That’s a super successful person, you know? And we

do the same thing. People value your advice when you’re always saying things socially online.

Something like, you know, I always get challenged in this situation and somebody comes along

and goes ‘Hey Steven, how would you deal with this person? You know, I see you in these

situations all the time and you seem really calm.’ And you know, people ask for advice on ‘How

would you deal with this? I’m having this situation and…’ That’s social wealth.

Nate: You’re not socially wealthy just based on how many connections you have. Like what Bill

Clinton did is just diversifying his portfolio. He’s just getting 1% from all these people. Where

like, I would prefer to have 2 or 3 friends that I know face-to-face really well and just put all my

eggs in one basket and not diversify. I’ll still be socially wealthy either way.

32

Tier 1 - Dimensional Themes

Relational Interest. Relational interest refers to an individual who is expressing interest in

another, specifically in regard to their personal goals, interests, or concerns. This remains

imperative to the success of an exchange due to its characterization of a beneficiary who has the

ability to listen, understand, and empathize with conveyed messages. As a result, the recipient

generates trust, which can leverage the opportunity for exchange (Cook & Rice, 2003).

Conveying personal interest in an individual is a form of identifying the situational needs of the

recipient and directly providing for them. Relational interest functions as the catalyst required to

initiate an exchange relation.

Pam: So I think for me it really brought out the people who were worth those long term

connections versus the short term ones because they’re the ones that actually care about like ‘oh,

how are things going in Florida?’ Not just ‘oh hey, can I come stay at your apartment for free?’

Relational interest can also take place in the form of a common interest. Common interests

institute a relational connection between actors who desire to fulfill the same task or experience.

Each individual is necessary in generating a successful outcome for the required initiative and

connections are formulated under mutual agreements in doing so.

Bryan: There’s gotta be some sort of common interest or value even if it's just momentarily. Just

‘cause, you know, I’ve had successful communication with a chat correspondent for

troubleshooting my internet and stuff… TV and stuff like that. I didn’t have a personal

connection, but we had a common interest at the time and the person on the other end kind of has

to present sort of professionalism and courteousness in that scenario for there to be successful

interaction because we’ve all had experiences where someone’s just like, you know, would ignore

you or give you the cold shoulder and stuff like that.

33

Personal Expression. The ability for an individual to fully express themselves as they

desire is considered a substantial variable for the success of a relational connection. Personal

expression is simply a platform for an individual to communicate what they have to offer to

others, which can be seen as a form of expressing a personal value proposition in order to initiate

an exchange. It is imperative to note that personal expression is simply an expression that is not

required to be genuine. While genuineness can be perceived, the ability for an individual to

freely convey messages is what characterizes this notion. Once a message has been expressed,

recipients may then discern whether or not this information is valuable. As such, recipients

possess the ability to either accept or reject messages at their discretion.

Anna: I think to have successful communication in any of those realms is having each person

being able to express themselves. I think when you can express yourself it’s a successful

communication, you know, socially. Whether it’s on the phone or it’s on Facebook or a private

message or on Linkedin, I think it has everything to do with how well you can express your ideas,

your thoughts, your differences… and I think that’s what makes successful communication. Some

people aren’t really good at expressing themselves.

Steven: You’re allowed to be honest with the version of you that you’re comfortable with. ‘Cause

yeah, the other person understands you if they can take what you’re saying in the right way.

Personal expression supports a variation of communication styles due to the ability for personal

value to be communicated either online or offline. A comfortable environment that supports the

beneficiary to express themself leverages a congenial perception with the recipient and generates

the opportunity for exchange. However, when a lack of congeniality and comfort are present, no

expression or value is communicated. In this case, no connection is formed. Anna describes an

individual who feels more comfortable in offering value online rather than with his friends.

34

Without the ability to express himself, this individual has formulated different types of relational

connections within online and offline environments.

Anna: So we have this really good friend who’s married an attorney and he’s very awkward, very

stiff in person. And then online his social presence online is hysterical. He’s witty, he’s funny,

and he’ll tell you these hysterical episodes that happen throughout the day. But the way he writes

it… and then when you meet him it’s like two absolute different personalities. In person, he’s

very rigid and I’m like “god, you’re such a great writer, you’re witty, you’re nothing like that in

person.” It’s almost like he’s really shy in person, which is interesting. I almost equate it to the

radio personality, you know? There’s a lot of radio personalities that are fantastic on the radio

with the mic and then when you meet them in person they’re sometimes introverts. And that Rush

Limbaugh, I don’t know, 10, 15 years ago when he was really big in radio and he was sooo shy

and talked about how he was a very big introvert and I was like “whaaaat?” I couldn’t believe it.

And he said “yeah, I’m really comfortable behind the mic.” So I thought that was interesting.

Solidarity. Analysis has indicated that solidarity can be formed through common interest,

shared ideology, common experience, or shared experience between individuals. Common

interest, which also generates relational interest, is unanimously indicated by participants to

function as the primary incentive for initiating communication. Dependent upon the situational

context, solidarity may be leveraged immediately or formulated as relational ties increase. In

addition, shared experiences and traits have the opportunity to establish relational bonds through

the mutual expression of empathy. The ability for individuals to empathize with one another by

sharing common interests and experiences contributes to the success of a relational connection.

As a result, solidarity forms in response to characteristic attitudes between actors in order to

prepare an exchange environment (Widegren, 1997). Carol discusses how solidarity is formed in

relation to common interests and experiences:

35

Carol: They still have a common interest… is what unifies all those interactions, right? Whether

it be observing someone do something awkward in a store or talking about something from a TV

show, you know? Online, to usernames… people you don’t even know what they look like. It’s a

common experience.

Kelly and Steven discuss the relationship between empathy and solidarity in regard to online

funding sites. Kelly provides an example of a family member who donates money to those whom

she empathizes with due to a shared experience. In contrast, Steven found difficulty raising

money due to a lack of common interest shared between himself and those in his immediate

network. The presence of solidarity notably impacted the success of each relational exchange.

Kelly: I think it’s got to be shared empathy for the… whatever the subject is. My cousin lost her

daughter and I guarantee you she gives to every single one that’s related to funding for a lost

child.

Steven: I guess common desire, common interests. You know, the only one that I really tried to

promote was… my art teacher that just passed away. About 2 years before he passed away I tried

to do an art show from all these artists. There’s like literally, you know, hundreds of people that

are professional artists now all over the world that came out of this class in the middle of

hickville, Florida, and I was trying to get those people connected. So I connected through

Facebook to all those people around the world and then I said “let’s do some sort of an event.

Let’s do some kind of celebration about how amazing this art teacher was and why was he so

successful.” There was newspaper articles about him and stuff, but I think 2 of my closest friends

donated $20. That was it. Nobody else really cares. And that got me depressed because I’m like

“so really? So, nobody cares about the arts at all?

36

Tier 2 - Transactional Function

Relational Investment. Solidarity, personal expression, and relational interest are found as

variables contributing to the formation of relational investment. Exerting effort into the behavior

and messaging of the individual are all indicators of actions seeking to accomplish a goal

through means of social exchange. As such, relational investment is intended for the acquisition

of a particular outcome, whether for immediate or future return value. Gift exchange and

altruism can be leveraged as supplemental forms of relational investment through the initiation

of reciprocity. However, relational investment may only function with actors simultaneously

offering a form of value to one another alongside these behavioral attributes. An exchange of

value is required for the emergence of relational investment. A lack of value removes incentive

for the beneficiary to reciprocate an exchange. Figure 1 is a proposed model illustrating how Tier

1 variables combined with a form of value input yield relational investment.

Figure 1. Formation of Relational Investment

37

Value Exchange. The most significant dimension within this conceptualization pertains to

the concept of value. Value fundamentally unifies the exchange process and serves as the

commodity of exchange between individuals. As previously discussed, an individual’s desired

goal when initiating an exchange is to ultimately satisfy a form of personal value, which is

relative to their needs at a particular moment in time. Identification of personal value as a form

of relational input inherently motivates each actor to search for new ways of fulfilling their

desires through relational investment. Hence, social connections and social exchange maintain

the ability to leverage forms of personal value in order to create additional value, or value

capital. These forms of value are proposed to be evident through the following types:

informational, social, economic, entertainment, and experiential value (See Table 1). The

reception of personal fulfillment is an indication of satisfaction and evidence that value was

exchanged.

Zack: Well, I guess unsuccessful would mean that it took value away from it, whereas successful

would mean that it added value. Whether or not the value is receiving something, or being able to

provide something for somebody, you’re still getting the value from that even though you’re

giving it away.

Zack: So is it if you get value from that connection you can settle? When I first came here there

was a barista at some coffee shop, and I don’t know the guy to this day, but I was asking him like

where to move. And he was telling me ‘don’t move south of Central in St. Pete.’ That’s the most I

got out of the conversation, and I couldn’t find him ever again, but I gained value from it so I

would say that was a successful social connection.

Steven: You can give a lot of value away… like the lady with the makeup, you know? She was

giving girls free lessons on the best way to do their makeup.

38

Table 1. Forms of Exchange Value

Value Types Examples

informational personal experience, advice, empirical facts

social friends, family, acquaintances

economic money, profit, advertising

entertainment celebrities, gossip, television, games, music

experiential event, travel, social interaction

Relational Outcome. Once actors have exchanged forms of value to satisfy desired needs

and have created relational investment, a relational outcome can then be accumulated and

produced. While personal fulfillment functions as indication to a successful exchange of value,

social clout and social capital may also serve as direct consequences of a value exchange (Molm,

1997). The ability for an individual to initiate solidarity, personal expression, and relational

interest in addition to a form of value desired by a recipient yields a form of social return value.

Return value, which is a form of personal value that satisfies the needs and desires of an

individual, can be immediately consumed and also leveraged at a future time through the form of

a relational investment in order to accumulate value capital. Through the nature of value

exchange, value can both be consumed and simultaneously produced as a relational outcome. As

such, an individual has the ability to utilize those value resources, which have now generated

social capital and social clout to generate future returns.

39

Exchange performed by corporations such as Airbnb sustain their personal and return

values in generating economic wealth through means of material capital. Throughout the digital

age, the traditional economic model is arguably shifting from a direct money-capital-money (M-

C-M) model to a form of exchange utilizing social value resources that aid in exponentially

generating monetary growth (Marx, 1867/1887). This is distinguished through Hean et al.’s

(2003) resource-commodity-resource (R-C-R) model of exchange, where resources take

precedence over money to perform social exchanges. The newfound sharing and on-demand

economies distinctly illustrate this transition, where Peter and Anna explicate how Airbnb’s

emergent corporate resource model functions within the social exchange process:

Peter: And you have a different relationship checking into a hotel versus checking into an Airbnb

depending on if the person is still there, right? If they’re renting out a room or something they

meet you. They’re exchanging knowledge to you as well. Because like, I stayed at an Airbnb in

San Francisco. I checked in and I didn’t know that neighborhood. The host told me everywhere to

go. They gave me knowledge about the location, which restaurants were good, how to get there,

which busses to avoid… so he shared knowledge and I made a connection with him. So it

introduced the ability to exchange commerce with that social connection as well. Same thing with

Uber, right? You make a social connection with the driver more so than you do with a taxi driver,

you know?

Anna: ...And sure enough we get there and I was like ‘Oh my god’ we’re reading, we printed it

out - that’s how old fashioned we are just so I had the instructions. I’m like “Oh my god, I just

need to see how we get there.” We get there and I thought ‘Oh, we’ll never meet her.’ And sure

enough she’s sitting, waiting at the cute little art hut Airbnb and had all of this fresh fruit from the

land and it was so neat. I think it brought us excitement that wow! We’re actually are meeting

with her and she’s engaging with us and she wanted to make sure that we knew how to get in and

out and what time the ferry’s were, and the great boat trips to take and I was like ‘This was really

cool. She didn’t need to do that.’

40

Within this context, personal value for the Airbnb host serves to accumulate monetary

wealth. The host thereby performs a relational investment through the exchange of knowledge to

their guests. By recommending locations to visit around the city, the hosts provide Peter and

Anna with both informational and experiential value. In Anna’s case, the use of gift exchange in

the form of her host presenting her with local fruit upon arrival aided to leverage the investment.

In regard to Peter, he now not only knows where the best restaurants are in the area, but also

gains the experience of living and navigating the city like a local, which is one of Airbnb’s core

values. Offering experiential value is inherently an expectation set by the company for all Airbnb

guests to receive, and inasmuch serves as the primary personal value Airbnb guests seek to

fulfill.

Figure 2. Consumption & Production of Value Resources

41

Now that the hosts have invested in their guests, they have built value capital. The

immediate return value for each host is a monetary exchange, however, the guests may now

return to the host’s apartment listing to rate and write reviews about their experiences. This

presents a form of social clout for the host to attract new guests while also functioning as a form

of relational investment (See Figure 2). In the event that both Peter and Anna decide to return to

stay with these specific Airbnb hosts, the effects of trust, solidarity, and reciprocity will aid in

generating additional monetary, informational, social, and experiential value for each individual.

Notably, these findings indicate that value resources may differ between consumption and

production. In other words, monetary value may be exchanged for informational value and

informational value may be exchanged for social value. For Airbnb, social wealth is expressed

through the company’s vast network of hosts and guests who provide various forms of value to

one another. Steven further explicates how this value capital is transformed into different

resource types:

Steven: Yeah, I mean, the social wealth for that would be the number of people having a

successful relationship there would mean like… I think Airbnb does have a lot of social clout

because they’ve had so many successful reviews and stuff. They’ve built up a social wealth that

then does eventually translate into financial because now I trust this site because of their social

wealth, not because of the amount of money that they’re spending on ads. They’re actually

socially wealthy.

42

Figure 3. Creation of Value Resources

Ultimately, the usage of ratings and reviews generates a social marketplace that

communicates to potential guests which hosts are more trustworthy and provide the most

experiential value. The rating system ultimately discerns which host is more valuable. An

accumulation of positive ratings has generated social clout and social capital on the site with the

prospect of receiving additional guests and even returning guests in the future, which functions

as the return value within Airbnb’s social exchange model (See Figure 3).

Anna: Yeah. We were like ‘oh my god, we are going to come here every year.’ We were so

impressed by her and met her little dog, and you know…

Zack further expounds upon this topic in regard to Youtube celebrities who offer makeup

tutorials. On a separate platform, the use of comments, ratings, and subscriber volume function

43

in much the same way as Airbnb’s environment. Both sustain themselves as a social marketplace

to hold producers accountable for providing informational value that is in demand for social

consumers. In this case, value can continue to be exchanged for different types. Video producers

exchange makeup tutorials, or informational value, for social value by building a large following

in hope that these individuals will click on advertisements and provide the producer with

monetary profit. Therefore, a transactional exchange of value across digital products yields the

potential for an abundance of social wealth to produce an abundance of monetary wealth.

Zack: But, we have social media and some features like likes and comments and things of that

nature. So there is a way for those hundreds of thousands of people to communicate in return.

And so what she is giving to people, the knowledge that she is giving, like the specific makeup

tutorials, she is understanding whether or not that is providing value to the people that she’s

speaking to based on the volume of return responses that she gets. So she does one, it doesn’t get

very many responses. She knows that wasn’t valuable to her audience - I say audience, but the

people that she’s speaking to.

Quantitative Findings

Analysis of 87 responses that directly addressed questions regarding social wealth were

run through LIWC. Within the category of Psychological Processes, the 7 selected subcategories

of (1) affective processes, (2) social processes, (3) cognitive processes, (4) drives, (5) time

orientations, (6) relativity, (7) personal concerns were used for analysis. Most notably, 5.76% (σ

= 6.78) of response content identified social wealth with positive emotional language. The

concept measured <1% in regard to negative language including anxiety, anger, and sadness.

Social processes measure 15.61% (σ = 8.35) of language, which identifies social inclusionary

words such as “talk,” “us,” “friend,” and “they.” This measure is by far the most significant of

the LIWC results, however, it is undetermined whether consistent use of the word “social”

44

throughout the discussion largely contributes to that percentage. Despite this possibility, a high

amount of personal anecdotes relayed by participants may also be contributing to the

significance of this measure. Although specific variables under this dimension were calculated at

<1%, descriptive language regarding friendships slightly surpass family members at 0.24% (σ =

0.75) and 0.14% (σ = 0.70) respectively, indicating the possibility of a higher occurrence or

usage of social wealth throughout friendship networks.

Words associated with cognitive processes such as “cause,” “know,” and “ought” pertain

relevance at 14.29% (σ = 8.67). The variables of insight (3.19%, σ = 4.12), causation (1.85%, σ

= 2.38), tentative (3.88%, σ = 6.58), and differentiation (4.74%, σ = 5.10) supplement to display

the cognitive effort put forth by participants. Words such as “think,” “consider,” “because,”

“would,” “maybe,” “always,” and “never” associated with these variables indicate that

participants were thoughtfully considering their responses. Evidence of strong cognitive

processes may demonstrate the authenticity in their construction of this concept.

Language pertaining to emotional drives measure 8.69% (σ = 8.11), with affiliation

sustaining the strongest significance in the category with 3.92% (σ = 5.70) including words such

as “ally,” “friend,” and “social.” This variable remains under the same consideration as the

results of social processes and may require additional study to distinctly understand the full

context of their word use. Power follows affiliation with 2.14% (σ = 3.44) alongside

achievement (1.65%, σ = 2.55) and reward (1.40%, σ = 2.40). These measures suggest social

wealth as being a goal-oriented process that may be leveraged by the individual to obtain a

particular outcome. Interestingly, risk measures insignificant with only 0.12% (σ = 2.40) of

language use. In this case, participants do not view social wealth associated as either a high risk

process or with risk oriented behavior.

45

Regarding time orientation, social wealth is most commonly discussed in the context of

present time with 14.95% (σ = 8.21) of language use. Beyond explanatory language that may be

contributing to this result, present time may also indicate that social wealth is a concept currently

experienced by participants across daily social engagement. With a past orientation of 2.09%

(σ = 4.45), participants demonstrate recollection of their usage or encounter with social wealth in

the past. Relativity, which includes time and spatial descriptors, measures at 9.09% (σ = 7.63).

Under this dimension, the variable of space is prominent with 5.87% (σ = 6.56), indicating that

social wealth is in association with spatial locations, whether they are concrete or abstract. To

complement significant levels of time orientation, time and motion measure 2.18% (σ = 2.86)

and 1.42% (σ = 2.26) respectively.

Under the dimension of personal concerns, money most prominently measures 3.63%

(σ = 5.38), with both work (1.65%, σ = 2.58) and leisure (1.46%, σ = 7.33) presenting close

equivalence in language use. A significant measure of monetary association supports social

wealth as a form of economic transaction, however, interestingly, comparative discussion

surrounding both work and leisure indicate the potential for social wealth to function as

hybridization between each domain.

46

Table 2. LIWC Analysis

drives affiliation achieve power reward risk past present future relativ motion space time work leisure

Mean 8.690 3.920 1.658 2.144 1.401 0.126 2.095 14.956 0.788 9.094 1.425 5.874 2.184 1.6517 1.465

σ 8.111 5.702 2.559 3.447 2.405 0.489 4.456 8.215 1.657 7.634 2.268 6.568 2.867 2.582 7.330

affect posemo negemo anx anger sad social family friend cogproc insight cause discrep tentat certain differ

Mean 6.255 5.769 0.416 0.008 0.270 0.024 15.617 0.144 0.247 14.292 3.19 1.859 1.133 3.88 1.073 4.743

σ 6.815 6.784 1.035 0.079 0.962 0.157 8.35 0.702 0.752 8.677 4.12 2.38 1.694 6.584 1.729 5.105

home money relig death

Mean 1.105 3.633 0.119 0.007

σ 5.997 5.385 0.679 0.072

47

CHAPTER FIVE:

DISCUSSION

These findings demonstrate social wealth as a concept supported by an exchange of value

throughout networks across the social sphere. While this study focused on a definition of social

wealth in the digital realm, participants have expressed potential for future study in regard to its

function offline. Evidence of interpersonal function would position social wealth as a natural

formation critical to the transactional process of social exchange and requires additional study.

However, classification of thematic categories that indicate the presence of solidarity, trust, and

reciprocity correlate to dimensions found within social exchange theory, and as such, support

social wealth’s integration with the theory. In addition to the association with social exchange

theory, social wealth’s strong use of value resources is found to also identify with the tenets of

social resource theory.

The formation of social resource theory began with the seminal work by Foa & Foa

(2012/1976), who first distinguished social exchange as an interchange of value resources that

can be classified into the following groups: (i) love, (ii) status, (iii) information, (iv) money, (v)

goods, and (vi) service. As the theory continued to progress, Turner (2012) most notably rejected

this conceptualization in suggesting six resource categories as rather limiting. Rather, Turner

(2012) distinguishes social resources as being generalized symbolic media, which he defines as

“media that are exchanged in social relations, that mark value as resources” (p. 164). Turner

(2012) further concludes that “resources not only affect how people behave but, from a

48

sociological perspective, they are the essence of social interactions that are used to build social

structure and culture” (p. 162).

Under this notion, social wealth may be further analyzed as a Marxian concept as a result

of value resources maintaining the ability to generate institutional ideologies by means of

exchange. Value therefore functions as a commodity to promote social exchange while

simultaneously influencing societal organization. This positions value exchange with the

potential to affect the division of labor and class structure in relation to the formation of social

networks and social capital. This development functions to supplement historical materialism

and Marxian analyses from a sociological approach. As such, social wealth yields the potential

for interdisciplinary study as a concept that may also present salience beyond sociological and

communication theory into political economy and economic theory.

In support of an economic process, results from LIWC indicate social wealth as a goal-

oriented concept categorized by the emotional drives of power, achievement, and reward. While

a high volume of risk does not appear to be present, money ranks highest amongst relational

concerns. While these findings are not unexpected given the nature of discussion, they

nevertheless support social wealth as part of a transactional social system. The proposed

transactional models (See Figure 2 and Figure 3) demonstrate the economic nature through

which social wealth is produced, accumulated, and consumed. This process presents application

across a variety of situational environments and between both individual and corporate actors.

Therefore, the presence of social wealth pertains to any functional entity, whether individual or

collective, performing relational exchange.

The necessity of social actors to leverage the value exchange process expands potential

for discussion surrounding social commodification of the individual. This study indicates that the

49

individual functions not only as a method of producing social, human, and material capital, but in

also embodying the traits of both social producer and consumer simultaneously. As such, the

individual serves as fixed capital throughout the duration of a social transaction in order to

inclusively generate, accumulate, and transform social resources. Further research is needed to

define phenomena regarding the potential fetishism of social actors.

Moreover, these findings bring into question the salience of knowledge as a prominent

value resource. Throughout a substantial amount of anecdotes provided by participants, the

transfer of informational value remained prominent across various forms of exchange. While it is

unjust to conclude that informational value is demanded across all forms of exchange, it appears

to be a common demand throughout each focus group discussion. Particularly within the digital

era, usage of the internet frequently mediates social transactions and is thereby conducive to the

transfer of knowledge. If knowledge and informational value serve as a primary resource for

exchange within digital services, is a social currency present? If social wealth and value capital

are produced as a result of social exchange, can surplus value be considered bought and sold?

One participant had concluded that knowledge is a form of currency, which was both an

unexpected and critical finding. While the aim of this study was not to specifically expound upon

that notion, these findings provide a substantial platform for future research surrounding this

concept in relation to the emerging knowledge economy. As the digital age continues to advance

past its infancy, research regarding social wealth remains imperative in understanding how the

social sphere and social institutions are fully manifesting into this epoch. Indication of how

social exchange can be utilized as a new form of economic model begs into question the future

of capitalism and social interaction. Will this present the opportunity for a new economic system

beyond the traditional Marxian conception? Can a social exchange system introduce a surplus of

50

abundance that transcends the wealth disparity witnessed throughout the contemporary neoliberal

era? How might social wealth emerge as part of a post-capitalist field? Due to an expanse of both

theoretical and practical potential, urgency is needed for supplemental research to broaden this

emerging area of study. Additional forms of study may take place beyond qualitative research

and into methods such as social network analysis to aid in understanding network structure in

relation to value exchange.

Practical Application

Furthermore, extensive consideration can be made in regard to the usage of social wealth

throughout the technology industry. With the ability for digital products to seemingly alter social

institutions overnight, a tremendous opportunity persists for these services to both affect, and in

many ways aid to determine, the moral and ethical function of social actors. These products not

only garner the ability to affect millions of people, but are also set forth to progress the

institutional structure of society. The future of social communication, capitalist structure,

methods of learning, and in lieu of current events, the global bureaucracy, remains drastically

affected by the present ecosystem of available products.

As such, how might digital products incentivize a production of value resources to shift

cultural demand away from a plethora of entertainment and into the need for social and

informational value that will serve to improve our daily lives? How might these products

function to expand social networks and strengthen relational ties between individuals to increase

compassion while decreasing hatred and animosity? How might networks with an abundance of

social wealth produce the social and human capital needed to solve for space exploration or the

elimination of fossil fuels? Progression into the height of the digital age will bring into demand

technological solutions for social problems. Insofar as discussion surrounding the mystery of a

51

post-labor society through which the need for human labor will be swiftly replaced by machine

technology, the remaining necessity to satisfy human needs will move away from material

production and return to an emphasis of value exchange between individuals. Even the emerging

field of artificial intelligence remains dependent upon this point—where the challenge remains

through the ways in which AI, machine learning, and the development of neural networks can

integrate within a value exchange system. The primary function of these digital entities will

remain dependent upon their ability to produce and exchange value to both each other and their

human counterparts.

Just as archaic societies functioned by means of a gift economy, the emergence of a

quasi-sharing economy provides evidence of social wealth in being utilized to increase a use of

relational value and generate social bonds that increase our quality of life. The relational

disparity felt from the industrial age, where material and economic wealth had grown plentiful

while social wealth remained trivial, has quickly indicated a disservice to human potential. An

integration of products made to both provide and leverage value resources throughout the global

network will determine the future of social and technological innovation. Therefore, future

production of these services needs to be made with the concept of social wealth at the forefront

of their design. Technology companies must think beyond a strict monetary objective and move

forth with social wealth and value exchange as a priority in order to achieve a resurgence of

social solidarity and innovation. Whether implemented through the encouragement of value

exchange between individuals or machine intelligences, cognizance in the generation of social

wealth may nevertheless serve to optimize existing forms of relational interaction through the

use of digital products to improve the function of society overall.

52

REFERENCES

Baldwin, D. A. (1978). Power and social exchange. The American Political Science Review, 72. 1229-1242.

Beaudoin, C. (2011) News effects on bonding and bridging social capital: An empirical study relevant to ethnicity in the united states. Communication Research, 38(2), 155-1798.

Bland, A. & Tobbell, J. (2016). Towards an understanding of the attributes of simulation that enable learning in undergraduate nurse education: A grounded theory study. Nurse

Education Today, 44, 8-13.

Blau, P. M. (2009). Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1964).

Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly,

42(2). 339-365.

Cockayne, D. G. (2016). Sharing and neoliberal discourse: The economic function of sharing in the digital on-demand economy. Geoforum, 77, 73-82.

Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of

Sociology, 94, 95-120.

Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1984). Exchange networks and the analysis of complex organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 3, 1-30.

Cook, K. S., & Rice, E. Social exchange theory. (2003). J. Delamanter (Ed.). Handbook of Social

Psychology (pp. 53-73). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Cook, K. S. & Yamagishi, T. (1992). Power in exchange networks: A power-dependence formulation. Social Networks, 14. 245-265.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Reviews, 2. 335-362. Engles, F. (1940). On historical materialism. New York, NY: International Publishers Co.

53

Ferrara, M. M. (2015). Parent involvement facilitators: Unlocking social capital wealth. School

Community Journal, 25(1), 29-51.

Fine, B. & Lapavitsas, C. (2004). Social capital and capitalist economies. South Eastern Journal

of Economics, 1, 17-34.

Foa, E. B. & Foa, R.G. (2012). Resource Theory of Social Exchange. K., Tornlom & A., Kazemi (Eds.) The Handbook of Social Resource Theory. Springer: NY. (Original work published 1976).

Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. & Sacerdote, B. (2002). An economic approach to social capital. The

Economic Journal, 112, 437-458.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Hean, H., Cowley, S., Forbes, A., Griffiths, P., & Maben, J. (2003). The ‘M-C-M’ cycle and social capital. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1061-1072.

Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan. London, ENG: Penguin Books Ltd. (Original work published 1651).

Homans, C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6). 597-606.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior and its elementary forms. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Khan, J. H., Tobin, R. M., Massey, A. E. & Anderson, J. A. (2007). Measuring emotional expression with the linguistic inquiry and word count. The American Journal of

Psychology, 120(2), 263-286.

Kimball, E., Annemarie, V. & Vargas, N. (2016). Student affairs professionals supporting students with disabilities: A grounded theory model. Journal of Student Affairs Research

and Practice, 53(2), 175-189.

Kojin, K. (2014). From the structure of world history: From modes of production to modes of

exchange. (M. K. Bourdaghs, Trans.). London, ENG: Duke University Press.

Lambert, A. (2015). Intimacy and social capital: Beyond the psychological perspective. New

Media & Society, 1-17.

Lawler, R. J. & Thye, S. R. (1999). Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annual

Review of Sociology, 25. 217-244.

Lawler, R. J., Thye, S. R. & Yoon, J. (2000). Emotion and group cohesion in productive exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3). 616-657.

54

Lawler, R. J. (2001). An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology,

107(2). 321-352.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1). 28-51.

Marx, K. (1887). Capital (4th ed.). (S. Moore & E. Aveling, Trans.). Moscow, USSR: Progress Publishers. (Original work published 1867).

Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse. (M. Nicolaus, Trans.). London, ENG: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1939).

Mauss, M. (1966). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. London, ENG: Cohen & West Ltd. (Original work published 1925).

Mill, J. S. (2009). Principles of political economy. (J. L. Laughlin, Abr.). New York, NY: D. Appleton and Company. (Original work published 1848).

Molm, L. (1990). Structure, action, and outcomes: The dynamics of power in social exchange. American Sociological Review, 55, 427-447.

Molm, L. (1997). Coercive power in social exchange. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Norris, P. (2002). The bridging and bonding role of online communities. The Harvard

International Journal of Press/Politics, 7(3), 3-13.

Pennebaker, J. W. & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1296-1312.

Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone. Organization, 6, 1-18.

Renolen, A. & Hjälmhult, E. (2015). Nurse experience of using scientific knowledge in clinical practice: A grounded theory study. Nordic College of Caring Science, 29, 633-641.

Ricardo, D. (2001). On the principles of political economy and taxation (3rd ed.). Kitchener, ON: Batoche Books. (Original work published 1817).

Simmel, G. (1902). The number of members as determining the sociological form of the group. American Journal of Sociology, 8(1). 1-46.

Simmel, G. (1971). On individuality and social forms. D. N. Levine (Ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1908).

Simmel, G. (2004). The philosophy of money (3rd ed.). (T. Bottomore & D. Frisby, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge. (Original work published 1900).

Sohn, D., Lee, C. (2015). Mapping the social capital research in communication: A bibliometric analysis, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1-22.

55

Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London, ENG: Methuen & Co., Ltd.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stray, V., Sjøberg, D. I. K. & Dybȧ, T. (2014). The daily stand-up meeting: A grounded theory study. The Journal of Systems and Software, 114, 101-124.

Takahashi, N. (2000). The emergence of generalized exchange. American Journal of Sociology,

105(4). 1105-1134.

Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (2009). The social psychology of groups. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1959).

Turner, J. H., (2012). The structural basis of resource execution. K., Tornlom, & A., Kazemi (Eds.) The Handbook of Social Resource Theory. Springer: NY.

Weber, T. A. (2016). Product pricing in a peer-to-peer economy. Journal of Management

Information Systems, 33(2), 573-596.

Widegren, Ö. (1997). Social solidarity and social exchange. Sociology, 31(4), 755-771.

56

APPENDICES

FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS

1. How would you define a successful social connection with someone? What does this look

like?

2. Describe the different types of social connections you have. Are they short term or long

term? How well do you know those individuals?

3. What are your social connections being utilized for? How and why are they being utilized

in this way?

4. Do you feel a sense of fulfillment in these connections? How so? Describe what causes

fulfilling social connections.

5. How like-minded are you and the other individual(s) in these connections? How

important are shared traits in the success of these connections?

6. Describe what the term ‘social wealth’ means to you. Provide an example of what it

might mean to be ‘socially wealthy.’

57

USF IRB APPROVAL

November 23, 2016

Kristina Oliva Communication Tampa, FL 33612

RE:

Expedited Approval for Initial Review

IRB#: Pro00028463

Title: Measuring Wealth Amongst Social Relations

Study Approval Period: 11/23/2016 to 11/23/2017

Dear Ms. Oliva: On 11/23/2016, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed and APPROVED the above application and all documents contained within, including those outlined below.

Approved Item(s):

Protocol Document(s):

Version#1,11.10.16.docx

Consent/Assent Document(s)*:

informed_consent.docx.pdf

*Please use only the official IRB stamped informed consent/assent document(s) found under the "Attachments" tab. Please note, these consent/assent document(s) are only valid during the approval period indicated at the top of the form(s).

It was the determination of the IRB that your study qualified for expedited review which includes activities that (1) present no more than minimal risk to human subjects, and (2) involve only procedures listed in one or more of the categories outlined below. The IRB may review research through the expedited review procedure authorized by 45CFR46.110. The research proposed in this study is categorized under the following expedited review category:

58

(6) Collection of data from voice, video, digital, or image recordings made for research purposes. (7) Research on individual or group characteristics or behavior (including, but not limited to, research on perception, cognition, motivation, identity, language, communication, cultural beliefs or practices, and social behavior) or research employing survey, interview, oral history, focus group, program evaluation, human factors evaluation, or quality assurance methodologies. As the principal investigator of this study, it is your responsibility to conduct this study in accordance with IRB policies and procedures and as approved by the IRB. Any changes to the approved research must be submitted to the IRB for review and approval via an amendment. Additionally, all unanticipated problems must be reported to the USF IRB within five (5) calendar days. We appreciate your dedication to the ethical conduct of human subject research at the University of South Florida and your continued commitment to human research protections. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call 813-974-5638. Sincerely,

Kristen Salomon, Ph.D., Vice Chairperson USF Institutional Review Board